get_properties

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the default limit (200) but omits whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or error behavior (e.g., if class is not found). This leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured as a docstring with clear separation of purpose and arguments. It is reasonably concise but includes extra whitespace and indentation that could be trimmed without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and 3 parameters, the description covers parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks information on return format, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps for a new agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully explains all three parameters: metadata_path ('path to global-metadata.dat'), class_fqn ('fully qualified class name'), and limit ('maximum properties to return (default 200)'). This adds substantial value beyond the schema's title fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'properties of a class', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fields' or 'get_methods', though the name itself provides distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without context for selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.